Gardner, Percy
The earliest coins of
Greece
THE BRITISH ACADEMY
The Earliest Coins of
Greece Proper
By
Percy Gardner
Fellow of the Academy
the Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. V"\
London
Published for the British Academy
By Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press
Amen Corner, E.G.
Price Two Shillings and Sixpence net
.31
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE
PROPER
PAGE
I. SUPPOSED EUROPEAN COINS IN ELECTRUM . . 3
II. PHEIDON AND THE COINS OF AEGINA ... 5
III. COINS OF EUBOEA 15
IV. COINS OF CORINTH AND CORCYRA .... 22
V. EARLY COINS OF ATHENS . . 27
SUMMARY
I. THE first question which arises is whether the earliest coins of Hellaa
were of electrum. Electrum coins have been attributed to Thrace,
Aegina, and Euboea ; but in every case the attribution is improbable,
and an Asiatic origin more likely.
II. The tradition ascribing the first issue of coins at Aegina to Pheidon
must be considered. The date of Pheidon may be fixed to the eighth
century B. c. But this is too early for the issue of coins : nor did
Aegina belong to Pheidon. Pheidon regulated the weights and measures
of Peloponnese : these are of doubtful, possibly Mycenaean, origin. It
was on the standard of Pheidon that the Aeginetans first issued silver
coins as substitutes for the bars of bronze and iron which had made up
the earlier currency of Peloponnesus. These bars were dedicated at
Argos, and some survive. The proportions of value were probably, iron
1, bronze 5, silver 600, so that a silver obol of 16 grains was equiva-
lent to 20 drachms of bronze or a mina of iron. The obol, the drachm,
and the talent made up a system proper to Greece : the mina of 100
drachms was interpolated. Origin of the didrachm, and the double
talent.
III. The cities of Euboea issued money in the seventh century on the gold
standard of Babylon, which they divided according to the scheme of
Pheidon. Their coins were uniform with those of Athens, and perhaps
of Megara, bearing one type only.
IV. The Corinthians began the issue of coin as early as the time of
Cypselus. Often restruck in Italy. They divided the Euboic stater
into 3, a fact which gives us valuable data in regard to the spread of
Corinthian commerce.
V. The earliest coins of Athens bore as types the owl or the amphora.
They were introduced by Solon. Accounts by Aristotle and by Androtion
of Solon's legislation. Their reconcilement. Solon's alteration of
measures, and cutting down of debts, both of which were done from
democratic motives. Solon adopted the Euboic standard for coin,
which was raised to the level later called Attic by Peisistratus, who
first struck the tetradrachms with the head of Athena. His motives.
The result the foundation of Athenian commerce, and the victory of
the Athenian silver coinage, to the weight of which Corinth, Eretria,
and other cities were obliged to conform. Wide circulation of Athenian
coin : the barbarous copies.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE
PROPER
BY PERCY GARDNER
FELLOW OF THE ACADEMY
I. SUPPOSED EUROPEAN COINS IN ELECTRUM
THERE can be no question but that Asia Minor preceded European
Greece in the introduction and use of coins ; and down to late in the
seventh century the monetary issues of Asia Minor were of electrum
only. Therefore, in inquiring what are the earliest coins of Hellas,
we are bound first to consider certain electrum coins possibly issued
on the European side of the Aegean, and having some claim to be
regarded as outgrowths of the Ionian electrum coinage. Did the
coinage of Europe, like that of Asia, begin with electrum? We
must consider electrum coins which have been given to Thrace,
Aegina, Euboea and Athens.
An electrum coin attributed to Thrace bears on the obverse the type
of a centaur carrying away a woman ; on the reverse a square incuse
roughly divided into four (PL No. 1). It is a stater of Phocaean weight.1
The assignment to Thrace, however, rests on no solid basis. The
reason for it is that on early silver coins of the people of the Pangaean
range, the Orrescii, Zaeelii and Letaei, we have a not dissimilar type
of a centaur carrying a woman in his arms. But a comparison of
the electrum with the silver coins shows at once differences far more
striking than the general likeness. On all the Thracian silver coins
the Centaur kneels and bears the woman lying at length in both arms
so that her head is in front of him. On the electrum coin he is
walking, and turns round to greet the woman, who is seated on his
back. The motive is thus quite different. The incuse of the
reverse also is quite different from the flat millsail-like incuse of
the Thracian silver coins, which are, in fact, quite a century later
than the electrum coin. M. Babelon regards the coin as of Ionic
provenance.2 Whether it was actually struck in Ionia or Thrace, it
1 Grains 252-5 (16-35 grammes). Sr. Mus. Cat. Ionia, p. 9, PL ii. 2. It
contains some 64 per cent, of pure gold.
8 Traitt des Monn. Gr. et Rom. ii. 134. Cited below as Traite.
4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
belongs, beyond doubt, to the Phocaean, or North Asia Minor circle
of influence; and has no relation to the coins of Greece proper.
Thrace, indeed, at that time was more exposed to the influence of
Asia than to that of Europe. This is clearly indicated by the fact
that when the cities of Thasos and Lete began striking silver coin,
they struck it on a different standard from those of Aegina and of
Corinth.
We turn next to the electrum coin attributed to Aegina. It is an
unique electrum stater weighing 207 grains (13-45 grammes) at Paris.
The type of the obverse is a tortoise : on the reverse are two deep oblong
incuses side by side (PI. No. 2). This particular form of incuse is rare :
I know it only for Calymna, Cos, Rhodes, and other Carian mints, in
the sixth century. This electrum coin has been regarded as the earliest
coin of Aegina, and indeed as remains of the bridge by which coinage
passed from Asia to Greece. But the type is not the sea-turtle as
on the earliest Aeginetan money, but a land-tortoise, and neither the
incuse nor the weight is Aeginetan. Its attribution is therefore very
doubtful : it may be of Asia Minor : it is more probable that it is
Asiatic than that it is European.
Other electrum coins of the Euboic standard have been given to
cities of Greece 1 : —
1. Owl to 1. Rev. incuse, wt. 21- grains (1-36 grammes)
(PL No. 3).
2. Eagle devouring hare „ 44-4 „ (2-87 „ )
(PI. No. 4).
3. Eagle flying „ 22-1 „ (143 „ )
4. Wheel of four spokes „ 21-8 „ (1-41 „ )
(PI. No. 5).
The reverse device of No. 1 is remarkable, consisting of two rect-
angles and three triangles. These coins have sometimes been set
aside as modern forgeries. U. Koehler, however, has maintained
their genuineness.2 He mentions several examples, one of which
was found in the bed of the Ilissus, one at Piraeus, others at Athens.
If we grant the genuineness of these coins, we must regard them
as an attempt to introduce into Athens the electrum coinage of the
Ionian coast. The coins are sixths of the Euboic stater of 130 grains ;
they thus follow the Asiatic system of division by thirds and sixths,
and not the European system of division by halves and quarters.
They have not the appearance of being very early : certainly they are
not as archaic as the earliest silver of Aegina. They stand apart
1 Head, Hist. Num., ed. 2, p. 358. 2 Athen. Mittheil 1884, 359.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 5
from the silver coinage of Athens, and seem to have exercised no in-
fluence upon it.
The other coins were by Mr. Head given to Chalcis in Euboea,
mainly on account of silver coins of Chalcis: — Eagle flying, with
serpent' in beak = ^AU (XAA) wheel. Tetradrachms, tetrobols.1
But more recently he has retracted that attribution,2 observing that
they are found in Asia Minor, No. 2, for example, at Priene. The
recent discovery of a hoard of electrum coins at Ephesus 3 with a great
variety of types has decidedly increased our disinclination to regard
type in early electrum coins as a satisfactory indication of mint. It
is therefore far more probable that these eagle and wheel coins belong
to Asia than to Europe. Thus it seems that any electrum issue in
Europe is more than doubtful, or if any such took place (at Athens
for example) it was rather in the way of a tentative issue for special
purposes than as a regular state currency. It was certainly not on
a bridge of electrum that coinage passed from Asia to Europe ; but
the coins of Europe were from the first of silver.
II. PHEIDON AND THE COINS OF AEGINA
The problem as to which king or which city of Hellas first issued
coin was much discussed in antiquity. Before considering the
evidence offered by extant coins, which is of course by far our most
valuable source of knowledge, we must consider the testimony
bequeathed to us on the subject by ancient historians, and such
historic documents as the Parian Chronicle.
The grammarian Julius Pollux, though he wrote in the reign of
Commodus, and can have had no direct knowledge of early Greek
coins and weights, is yet of value to us, because he had access to
a considerable range of literature, much of which has disappeared.
He retails 4 to us a number of ancient views as to the earliest Greek
coins. I have elsewhere 5 discussed the origin of the electrum coins
of Asia, which were much earlier in date than the silver coins of
Hellas. Only such of Pollux's statements as refer to coins of Greece
Proper concern us here. He mentions an opinion that coins were
first struck at Athens by Erichthonius and Lycus. It is, however,
the universal opinion of modern numismatists that coins did not
make their appearance at Athens until the sixth century, and that the
1 B. M. Cat. Central Greece, p. lii, Num. Chron., N.S. xv, PI. viii. 16-18. Cf.
Babelon, Trait6, ii. 1, p. 670.
2 B.M. Cat. Ionia, p. xxzi.
3 Brit. Mus. Excavations at Ephesics, p. 74 (Head).
* Onomast. ix. 83.
• Proceedings of the British Academy, 1 908.
6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
money of various other cities is earlier in fabric. And, indeed, the
very fact that two mythical heroes like Erichthonius and Lycus were
credited with the first issue of coins appears to be in itself a proof
that there was no tradition connecting the earliest issue of coins in
Greece with historic persons at Athens. We are told by Plutarch
that Theseus issued money with the type of a bull : but here again
we are in mythic surroundings. The laws of Draco mention oxen as
the measure of value in case of fines, which clearly shows that in his
time (620 B. c.) the Athenians did not ordinarily use coins, though at
that time they were certainly in use at Aegina and Corinth. Pollux
also tells us that Aglosthenes ascribed the earliest issue of coins to
Naxos, of which island the writer was probably an inhabitant. Early
coins of Naxos are known to us ; but they appear to be imitations of
those of Aegina, and less archaic. Both of these attributions are
probably due to patriotic feeling, which often induced Greek writers
to attribute to their own city the origin of great inventions.
A more serious claim to the origination of a coinage in Europe is
put forward on behalf of Pheidon of Argos. The whole question of
the position of Pheidon in early Greek history and of the nature of
his policy is a difficult one. Here we need only consider his date,
and his connexion with early weights, measures, and coins.
In reviewing the statements of ancient writers in regard to this
matter, I propose first to mention them in historic order, and after-
wards to examine them critically, to judge of their respective value
and their truth.1 Herodotus, our earliest authority in point of time,
makes two statements. He says that Pheidon established the
measures (TO fxe'rpa rcoiTjo-as) of Peloponnese 2 ; and that his son
Leocedes was one of the suitors of Agariste, daughter of Cleisthenes
of Sicyon (about 595 B. c.). The next authority in order of date is
Ephorus, who is quoted in this connexion by Strabo.3 He says that
Pheidon of Argos, who was tenth in descent from Temenus, invented
the measures called Pheidonian, and the weights, and struck coins,
both silver and other, that is, presumably, gold or electrum.
In another place 4 Strabo cites Ephorus as authority for the state-
ment that silver was first issued by Pheidon at Aegina. The Etymo-
logicum Magnum 5 makes the same assertion, and adds that Pheidon
dedicated in the Argive Heraeum the spits (of iron or bronze) which
1 This has already been done by M. Theodore Reinach (L'Histoire par les Mon-
naies, p. 35 : Revue Numismatique, 1894) and others. I have preferred to make an
independent investigation ; but my results are much like those of M. Reinach.
2 Hdt. vi. 127. 3 P. 358.
4 P. 376. e ». t>. o/3eXio7cos ; cf. Orion, 6. v. opt\6s.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 7
had hitherto served as a currency, but were now demonetized.
Pausanias gives us a valuable statement as to the date of Pheidon
when he says that that tyrant in conjunction with the people of Pisa
celebrated at Olympia the eighth occasion of the festival : 748 B. c.
The Parian Chronicle says that Pheidon was the eleventh in descent
from Herakles, whereas Ephorus makes him the tenth from Temenus,
and so the fourteenth from Herakles. The Parian Chronicle would
thus date him to about the middle of the ninth century, according to
the ordinary Greek way of reckoning by generations, Ephorus to the
middle of the eighth century. Thus various authorities place Pheidon
in the middle of the ninth, the middle of the eighth, and the end of
the seventh centuries.
Confused by these conflicting authorities, modern historians have
given very various dates to Pheidon. Some, following Weissenborn
and Curtius, have assigned him to the twenty-eighth Olympiad
(668 B.C.) rather than the eighth. Others have accepted the date of
Herodotus,1 as determined by the appearance of Pheidon's son
among the wooers of Agariste. But the date of Weissenborn is an
unsatisfactory compromise, a mere correction of the text of Pausanias,
and the whole story told by Herodotus of the wooing of Agariste has
the air of fable rather than of fact.2 It is not at all difficult to
suppose that Herodotus may have missed out a few generations, or
confused an earlier with a later Pheidon. On the other hand, the
date given by Pausanias, 748 B.C., is consistent with that given by
Ephorus, which works out as 757 B. c. And it is almost certain that
Pausanias had seen at Olympia some documentary authority for his
date ; though no doubt the records of the early Olympiads were of no
great historic value.3 On these grounds we may regard it as at least
very probable that Pheidon belongs to the middle of the eighth cen-
tury B.C. And it is even more probable that he had to do with a
reform or regulation of the measures of Peloponnese. Not only
Ephorus, but Aristotle4 and the Parian Chronicle speak of certain
measures as fixed by and named after Pheidon. So much then we
may regard as historic fact. That he regulated weights as well as
measures is extremely probable, since there is a close connexion
between the two. We are justified in ascribing to him the weights
used in commerce for a long time not only in Peloponnesus, but in
Athens also, which are known to us by many extant examples,,5
1 So formerly did I. See Types of Greek Coint, p. 7.
J Compare the note of E. Abbott on Hdt. vi. 127.
* See especially Mahaffy in Journ. Hell. Stud. ii. 164.
4 In Pollux, x, 179. B Smith, Diet. ofAntiq., art. Pandera, p. 452.
8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
following the so-called Aeginetan standard. The phrase of the Parian
Chronicle is eS^fvo-e TO. /uterpa . . . »cal aveo-Kevao-f. This regulation would
naturally take the form of making weights and liquid measures con-
sistent one with the other ; that is to say, equating his standard of
weight with a certain cubic measure of water. This sounds a some-
what complicated proceeding for so early a time, but it is the readiest
way of producing a system of weights and measures: and it was
probably by doing this that Pheidon attained his fame in Greece. It
is probable that he merely regularized existing measures and weights,
not inventing them, but making them systematic and consistent.
These Pheidonian weights are in all probability the same that were
used in Greek commerce, until the time of Alexander the Great and
later, in Northern Greece and Peloponnesus. Several specimens have
reached us from Athens. And they were no doubt used by Pheidon
for bronze and iron, as for other commodities. According to them
were regulated the old oboli in those metals which circulated in
Greece before the invention of silver coin. And when silver coin
came into existence it went by the same standard, though probably
with new denominations. This standard is that which we are accus-
tomed to call Aeginetan, because it is made familiar to us through its
adoption by the people of Aegina.
The assertion that Pheidon issued coins at Aegina is a statement
which we cannot accept. In the first place, no coins of Greece
proper seem to be so early as the eighth century ; and in the second
place, Pheidon never had any authority in Aegina. Probably the
Aeginetans were the first people in Greece to strike money ; and their
money was on the Pheidonian standard : hence a natural confusion.
It was the weights, not the coinage of Greece, which were due to
Pheidon.
We turn next from the literary to the archaeological evidence.
It is at once clear that the compiler of the Etymologicum Magnum
would scarcely have asserted that dedicated oboli were preserved
in the Heraeum of Argos, unless one of his authorities had seen them
there. The Heraeum, as we know, was burned in 423 B. c., when
there is a probability that dedications of bronze would be melted and
disappear, in which case the oboli preserved in the later temple
could scarcely be genuine, but rather restorations. However that
may be, it is certain that the recent excavations conducted by the
American School of Athens on the site of the Heraeum have brought
to light a great quantity of votive bronzes of early date. Many of
these were spits, and many pins or nails for the hair or garments.1
1 TheArgive Heraeum, i. 61 ; ii. 330.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 9
Dr. Waldstein suggests that these were the original bronze currency :
but as there is no record of their weights the theory is hard to verify.
On the other hand, a mass of iron was discovered, which was found to
consist of numerous rounded bars of metal coming to a point, and
which was held together at either end by an iron coil tightly twisted
round. It is hard to regard these iron spits as anything but oboli dedi-
cated after being demonetized. This discovery would seem to refute
the suggestion of T. Reinach,1 that the obols exhibited in the temple
were really standard- weights kept in the temple for reference. Mr.
Svoronos has made diligent search for these iron spits in the Museum
at Athens, and discovered them.2 They are much broken and de-
cayed, so that their present weight gives us little information. It is,
however, desirable to record that in Mr. Svoronos' opinion the length
of the spits was about 1-20 metres (four feet) ; and the weight 495-
302 grammes (7,650-4,675 grains), a Pheidonian mina being about
622 grammes (9,600 grains). Supposing that these iron bars were
a remnant of early currency, that currency, being dedicated in the
Heraeum of Argos, would naturally be not Aeginetan but Argive.
If I have rightly assigned the date of Pheidon, their dedication would
be later than his time. For it appears that until the seventh century,
and even later, the currency of Peloponnesus consisted of literal oboli
or bars of metal. These were of bronze or of iron : the iron of
course being heavier and less valuable. This currency was every-
where except at Sparta replaced later by the Aeginetan coins, at all
events in large payments. The dedication therefore, must belong to
the seventh or sixth century.
The Aeginetan standard as known to us from extant weights and
coins is as follows : —
Talent 37,320 grammes 576,000 grains.
Mina 622 „ 9,600 „
Drachm 6-22 „ 96 „
Obol 1-03 „ 16 „
But while this is certainly the standard which passed in later times
as Pheidonian, and must have been connected with Pheidon, it is a
system based upon the weight of the silver drachm. In discussing
its origin, we had best take our start, not from the perplexing
traditions as to Pheidon, but from the known facts as to the earliest
coins.
At a far earlier date even than that of Pheidon, regular systems of
weights and measures had been in use in the great empires of the
1 L'Hittoire par les Monnaies, p. 38.
8 Journ. Internal, de Numism. ix, p. 196.
10 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
East, Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt. That they were in use also in
prehistoric times in Crete and Mycenae is in itself very probable, and
seems to be established by Sir A. Evans in a paper contributed to
Corolla Numismatica.1 He shows that talent and shekel weights
were in use at Cnossos, and that in every case the standard used was
taken from Egypt, though in some cases it may be traced beyond
Egypt to Babylon. That a system approximating to the light Baby-
Ionic gold standard was in use in Egypt, in Crete, and in Argolis in
the second millennium B.C. seems to be clearly made out. The
use of a standard corresponding to that of Aegina is, however, not
proved for prehistoric times. What Evans has called the heavy
Egyptian gold standard is certainly followed in Crete in the case of
several weights which bear marks of value, showing an unit of 12-30
to 13-98 grammes (188 to 215 grains). At first sight this may seem
a probable source for the weight known as Aeginetan, with a drachm
of 96 grains (6-22 grammes), and a didrachm of 192 grains (1244
grammes). But it is very doubtful whether there is here any line of
connexion. In the first place, the weights generally are much nearer
to the higher than to the lower limit, and so are not at all close to the
Aeginetan standard. And in the second place, the break between
Mycenaean and historic Greece is so complete ; it is so clear that a
period of barbarism and poverty separates one from the other ; that
we may well doubt whether so civilized an institution as a weight-
standard would survive.
Mr. Head 2 is disposed to regard a group of weights found at
Naucratis, which seems to follow the Aeginetan standard, as in-
dicating that that standard may have come from Egypt. But Nau-
cratis was not of very early foundation ; and there is no reason for
thinking that the weights in question are earlier than the date of
Pheidon, or even than the first issue of coins at Aegina.
Talents and minas of gold and silver and electrum, together with the
stater of electrum, which was a fraction of the mina, and its divisions
§, ^, y^, -fa, had long been known in Asia, and used by the lonians
of the coast of Asia Minor. But the comparatively rude inhabitants
of Peloponnesus had been content with a currency of bronze pieces,
sometimes round, in the shape of a ire'Xavop, but more often long, in
the form of a bar or spit (o/3cAo's). A handful (six) of these bars made
up a drachm (8paxn>w?).3 In larger payments bronze was probably
weighed out, as was the aes rude of Italy.
1 Minoan Weights and Currency, pp. 336-367.
J Hist. Num., 2nd edition, xliv ; cf. Petrie, Naukratis, i, p. 78.
8 So Etym. Magn., s. t. Spax^ and ojScXtoxor.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 11
It was this rude currency which Pheidon regulated, without, so far
as we can judge, superseding it. But later, in the seventh century, this
primitive system was out of date. Probably the bars of bronze were
very irregular in shape, and perhaps in weight. They were not suited
to the growing commerce of the Greek islands. The people of Aegina,
at that time in the front ranks of commerce, must have known all
about the electrum coins of Ionia. Electrum, however, was not
native to Greece. Silver, on the other hand, was procurable from
Spain, Thrace, and elsewhere. The Aeginetans decided to strike in
silver coins which should represent the bronze oboli which were
current. The silver obol would stand for one such bar ; the silver
drachm for a handful of such bars, that is for six ; the silver didrachm
would stand for twelve.
Setting aside the notion that Pheidon was connected with the
earliest coinage of Aegina, we may claim for Aegina the precedence
in European coinage, on the ground of the extremely rude and
primitive character of the oldest examples of Aeginetan coinage,
and because they seem to have served as models for all the coins of
the islands of the Aegean. In the noteworthy find at Santorin, in
1821, 760 early coins of the Greek coast and islands were found, and
of these 541 were of Aegina, while many other coins showed in
fabric and type signs of an attempt to conform to the Aeginetan
pattern.1 To this find we will presently return.
Though the question of the origin of the standard used at Aegina
for silver coin has been a subject of much discussion, the dis-
cussion has not been fruitful, mainly because it has not proceeded
on scientific lines. It has been carried on by numismatists solely in
relation to coins : the inquiry has been why the Aeginetans struck
coins weighing 192 or 194 grains, when no people used that standard
for money before. The question, however, is really a much wider
one, including the whole question of the origin of currency in
Peloponnesus.
We may begin by dismissing the current views as to the origin
of the silver weight of Aegina. One view 2 is that it is the weight
of the South Ionian stater (224 grains), somewhat reduced. And in
support of this theory the fact has been brought forward that one
of the very early Aeginetan silver coins weighs as much as 211 grains.
This coin, however, stands quite by itself, and as Mr. Head suggests,
may be a mere accident. No reason for the degradation of weight-
1 Num. Chron. 1884, pp. 269-280 (Wroth).
2 So Head, Hist. Num., p. xxxviii. In the second edition of his great work,
however, Mr. Head takes another view.
12 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
standard by thirty grains has been given, nor any reason why the
South Ionian standard should have been adopted at Aegina, when
it was not adopted at any other European mint. It is a mere guess,
without any evidence to justify it. The same may be said of
Prof. Ridgeway's view that the object in issuing coins of the
Aeginetan weight was that ten of them should be of the value of
a Homeric talent or Euboic gold coin of 130 grains. He suggests
that 130 grains of gold, at the rate of 15 to 1, would be equivalent
to ten silver coins weighing 195 grains. This view is based upon
two assumptions, both of which not merely are arbitrary, but can be
definitely disproved. It is assumed that the standard of value in
Aegina was a gold coin or talent. This was not the case ; the
standard of value was, according to our authorities, a bar of bronze
or of iron. And it is assumed that gold and silver passed in the
proportion of 15 to 1. This was not the case. When the Athenians
needed gold for the Parthenos statue of Pheidias, they bought it
with silver at the rate of 14 to 1 : but this is the highest rate of
exchange of which we hear in Greece Proper : the rate usual in the
Persian Empire was 13 or 13| to I.1 Passing these baseless con-
jectures, let us consider the real circumstances of the case.
In adjusting the new silver currency to the existing currency of
bronze, two courses were possible. The Aeginetans either could
strike coins of such a weight that a round number of the bronze
oboli, say ten or twenty, would go for one of them. In that case
they might have originated a new standard of weight for coinage,
other than the Pheidonian. Or they could strike silver coin on the
Pheidonian standard, leaving the question of the number of bronze
bars which would go for each to settle itself.
We know that other States when they issued coins in a fresh
metal, say in silver or in gold, sometimes, like the kings of Lydia
and Persia, used different standards for the two metals, in order
that a round number, ten or twenty, of the silver coins should
pass for one of the gold. And sometimes, like the Athenians and
like Alexander the Great, they used one standard for the two
metals.
It was the latter of these systems which was adopted by the people
of Aegina. They issued their silver money on the already familiar
Pheidonian standard (PI. No. 6). The weight of these early silver
staters is well known to us. The didrachm weighed about 192 grains
(grammes 12-44), the drachm 96 grains (grammes 6-22), the obol,
which was the sixth of the drachm, 16 grains (grammes 1-03). These
1 See T. Reinach's paper in L'Hist. par les Monnaiex, pp. 41-73.
weights correspond with the standard of numerous weights of
Pheidonian type which have come down to us.
At the same time the Aeginetans fitted the new coins into the old
currency by equating the new obol of silver with the old obolus or
spit of -bronze. In primitive societies it is easy and usual to find
some simple proportion between various objects used as measures
of value; for example, a slave may be equated with three oxen, an
ox with ten sheep, and so on. We have reason to think that the
relation established between the values of silver and bronze at
Aegina was 120 to 1. We have an indication of this in the facts of
the regular currency of Sparta. At Sparta the current oboli were not
of bronze ; the currency consisted of iron bars, which were of the
weight of an Aeginetan mina.1 According to Plutarch and Hesy-
chius these minae of iron were worth only half an obol of silver. In
that case iron would be in relation to silver only as 1 to 1200.
Hultsch, however, gives reasons for thinking that the normal value
of these bars was an obol, giving a relation of 1 to 600. Now bronze
was in Greece about five times as valuable as iron. Haeberlin 2 has
given reasons for thinking that in Italy in the third century the
relations of value between silver and bronze were 120 to 1. If the
same proportion held in Greece, the silver obol of 16 grains would be
equivalent to an obol of bronze weighing 1,920 grains (124 grammes),
or twenty Aeginetan drachms. This corresponds to the reason and
probability of the matter. The bronze bars would in that case have
weighed about a quarter of a pound; a drachm or handful of six
of them would weigh about If pounds, somewhat less than a
kilogram.
The early currency of Peloponnesus seems to have consisted of
bars both of bronze and iron, bronze for larger, and iron for smaller
payments. At Sparta iron only was allowed. But it would appear
that this regulation was not a primitive one, but introduced in the
course of Spartan history : for in the Homeric age, as we know, iron
was very valuable ; and its value could not have become despicable
until well on in the iron age. At Byzantium, and in Peloponnesus
iron bars or coins were retained for small payments until the fourth
century B. c.
The Aeginetan talent, consisting of 60 minae, or 6,000 drachms,
or 48,000 obols, must have reference to minae, drachms, and obols of
silver, not of bronze. For 48,000 x 16 grains weighs about eighty
pounds, or forty kilograms, which would be about what a man might
1 Hultsch, Metrologie, p. 535.
8 Systematik des alt. rom. Miinxwesem (1905).
14 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
easily lift. If a talent had been formed from the bronze obolus of
1,920 grains, it would be a weight 120 times as great, which would
be quite out of proportion to a man's capacity for lifting. So the
drachm which was in weight the hundredth of a mina, and the obol
which was in weight the sixth of a drachm only came into existence
when silver began to be coined. The drachm and the obol as coins
appear to have been invented by the Aeginetans. They were borrowed
by all the systems of silver coinage which came into use in Hellas.
This is abundantly proved by the marks of value which the coins of
Peloponnese bear in the fifth century.1 And even in Asia it became
usual to strike drachms or obols of Persian or Phoenician standard-
But originally, as the Aeginetans from the first went by the
drachm and the obol, so the lonians of Asia used the stater and
its parts.
A difficulty remains. Why in that case should the Aeginetans
have struck at first, not the drachm of 96 grains, but the didrachm
of 192 grains? The answer I think is ultimately this, that man has
two hands and not one only. A didrachm is the equivalent of the
bars of bronze which a man carries when he has both his hands full
of bars, six in each. It stands for a man, while a drachm represents
only half a man.
We may observe a parallel phenomenon in regard to the talent.
Students of metrology are puzzled at finding that the various talents
in use in Asia, and even in Europe, have two forms, light and heavy ;
and the heavy is of exactly double the weight of the light. Now
a talent, usually weighing some 60 or 80 of our pounds, is what
a man can lift : the root of the word is r\a : T\ao> meaning I bear.
But a man can lift in two hands double as much as he can lift in
one. What a man can carry in one hand is a light talent : what he
can carry in two hands is a heavy talent.
At Aegina the mina is an arbitrary division, ^y of the talent, or
100 silver drachms. The name shows it to be of Asiatic origin :
it is a stepping-stone in European systems of weight between
talent and drachm. But the talent is a natural weight, almost as
natural as a weight, as the foot and the fathom are as measures of
length. And like them it varies in various countries between certain
limits, following the local notion as to what a man can be expected
to lift. As the yard represents the length of the King's arm,
measured from the breast-bone, so the royal talents of Assyria repre-
sented what the King could comfortably lift in one hand or in two.
In a sense the drachm also is a natural measure, for given the usual
1 Br. Mas. Cat. Peloponnesus, p. xvii.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 15
size of a bar of metal, it would not be convenient to carry more
than a certain number of them in the hand : the bars of Peloponnese
were of such a size that six could be carried.
III. COINS OF EUBOEA.
THE cities of Chalcis, Eretria, and Cyme in Euboea were among
the great colonizing cities of Greece at the beginning of the Olym-
piads. Cumae in Italy was a foundation of the people of Chalcis
and Cyme,1 and the earliest of all Greek settlements in Italy ; and
Italy, Sicily, and Chalcidice in Macedon were dotted with Euboean
colonies. The Euboeans would not be likely to be far behind the
Aeginetans in the issue of coin. And being more detached from
the Greek mainland, and in closer relations with the people of Ionia
where Cyme in Aeolis was a colony of Euboea, it is probable that
their earliest issues would have a closer resemblance to those of
Asia Minor.
The standard which was derived from Babylon and was largely
used for gold coins in Asia, was known to the Greeks, including
Herodotus, as the Euboic standard. This does not of course imply
that the Babylonic standard was adopted from Euboea. The
opposite line of derivation is the only one probable or indeed possible.
It does, however, prove that it was through Euboea that the Greeks
gained knowledge of the standard of Babylon.
The issue of silver coins on a gold standard is a remarkable
phenomenon. In Asia, gold and silver were in the sixth century,
and probably earlier, minted on different standards, in order that
a round number of the silver coins should exchange against one or
two of the gold coins. The issues of Croesus and of the Persian
kings, for example, are so arranged that twenty of the silver pieces
pass for one of the gold pieces. And this custom has generally pre-
vailed, down to our days. The Euboeans took another line, which
was later adopted by the Athenians and by Alexander the Great.
They issued silver money of the same weight as the gold which was
current. Not much gold would pass in Greece, but such as there
was would no doubt pass by the Babylonic weight, which indeed had
struck such deep roots that no gold coins (with insignificant excep-
tions) were struck on any other standard than the Euboic and its
Attic variant down to Roman times. The price of the gold stater in
silver coins of the same weight was left to be determined, not by any
authority, but by the demand, and the circumstances of the time.
1 Modern historians are generally agreed that it was Euboean Cyme, and not
Cyme in Aeolis, which took part in this settlement.
16 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
It is a characteristic difference between Asia, where the will of kings
regulated all things, and Europe, with its free cities.
This is a point of some importance, because some archaeologists
have been disposed to see in the frequent changes at some cities of
the standard used by them for silver coins, a series or succession of
attempts to adjust the silver coinage to the gold, when the propor-
tionate value of the two metals changed. It is in this direction that
Professor Ridgeway has looked for the origin of some silver standards,
notably the Aeginetan.1 And Mr. Head 2 is disposed to see in the
somewhat notable changes of the silver standards used in the fifth
and fourth centuries at Abdera in Thrace, a series of adjustments of
the silver coinage to a constantly rising value of silver in proportion
to gold. I cannot in this place fully consider Mr. Head's theory.
It will be sufficient to point out two preliminary objections to it.
In the first place we can scarcely suppose Abdera to have adopted
quite a different system of coinage, the bimetallic, when all the other
cities of Thrace were monometallic. And in the second place, the
standard of value in Abdera, in the fifth and fourth centuries, was
not, as Mr. Head's theory assumes, the daric or gold stater, but the
silver coins of Athens.
But though the Euboeans accepted the Babylonic weight for their
stater, they did not divide it, on the Asiatic plan, into thirds and
sixths and twelfths, but into halves and twelfths, drachms and obols.
This was the Pheidonian system of division. Herein, as we shall see,
they differed from the Corinthians.3 And they succeeded in making
their coinage thoroughly European and national.
This is the simplest, and I think the true, view of the origin of
the Euboic weight. It is not, however, wholly free from difficulty.
That it was bronze, not gold, which was the standard of value in
Greece I have insisted in speaking of the early coins of Aegina.
And the Aeginetans adapted their issues of silver to a bronze and not
to a gold currency. Why should the Euboeans have taken another
course ? Dr. Lehmann-Haupt 4 has maintained that the Euboeans
also adapted their silver to bronze : but in my opinion he does not
prove this satisfactorily. He supposes that C hale is, being as its name
implies a city abounding in copper, and commanding copper mines,4
was able to force copper to a higher comparative value than it had
1 See above, p. 12. 2 Hint. Num., ed. 2, p. xliii.
8 In the trinal divisions of the silver coins of Chalcidice, I should see not
Euboean influence, as Dr. Imhoof-Blumer, but Corinthian. See below, p. 25.
* Copper and bronze are not clearly distinguished. Hermes, 1892, p. 549 ;
Zeitschr.f. Numism., 27, 125.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 17
elsewhere. The ordinary relation between copper and silver in the
Levant being 120 to I, a mina of silver would ordinarily pass, where
the Babylonic silver weight was used, for two talents (120 minae) of
copper. But if the Chalcidians were able to force copper up to a value
of 1 to 96 in comparison with silver, then these two talents of copper
would be equivalent only to ^6o or f of a Babylonic mina of silver.
Now f of a Babylonic mina of silver is nearly a Euboic mina of
436-6 grammes (6,750 grains).1 Thus the writer supposes that the
greater value given to copper resulted in the invention of a new and
lighter standard for silver. It will however be observed that Dr.
Lehmann-Haupt's theory is entirely conjectural; and is built upon
the astonishing assumption that when you have a greater quantity of
goods to dispose of, you can raise the price of the goods, which is
entirely contrary to economic fact. Of course, if Chalcis had a
monopoly of copper, it would be somewhat different : but even then,
why should the people who bought copper at a high price in Euboea
sell it at a lower price in Asia Minor ? Moreover, Chalcis had no
monopoly : but only valuable mines. The theory in question there-
fore is utterly baseless and inacceptable. Only one plausible argu-
ment can be urged in its favour, that at Athens the X^KO^S was one
ninety-sixth of the didrachm, since eight chalci went to the obol and
six obols to the drachm. But this argument has no weight. The
chalcus was probably a late-invented fraction of the obolus : in some
places six went to the obol, in other places eight : there is no indica-
tion that at Chalcis it was originally of the weight of a didrachm, as
the theory requires.
Mr. Head 2 is disposed to think that the Euboic standard came to
Euboea from Samos, where it had already been used in early times
for electrum ; and the use for electrum would be a natural stage on
the way for its use in silver. The chief objection to this view is that
the early electrum coins in question, attributed by Mr. Head to
Samos, are not really struck on the Babylonic gold standard, but on
a somewhat heavier standard, stater 135 or 270 grains, 17-50 or 8-75
grammes, which was later in use at Cyrene and was introduced at
Athens by Peisistratus. This standard I regard as of Egyptian
origin : I consider it later, under Athens. Thus a Babylonic origin
of the Euboic standard is by far the most probable.
I have already discussed, and dismissed, the view that the earliest
coins of Euboea were struck in electrum.
1 This is a false value for the Euboic mina, which really weighed 421 grammes
(6,500 grains).
2 Hist. Num., ed. 2, p. xlvL
B D
18 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
The earliest silver coins which can be attributed with certainty to
Chalcis are the tetradrachms, didrachms, and smaller divisions bearing
as type on one side a flying eagle, on the other a wheel in a triangular
incuse.1 The weight of the tetradrachm is 258-7 grains (16-76 grm.) :
that of the didrachm just half this. The attribution of these coins to
Chalcis is guaranteed by the appearance on them of the letters (V AH')
(XAA) in some later examples.
These later examples, however, can scarcely be given to an earlier
date than the middle of the sixth century ; and the uninscribed coins,
some of which may perhaps belong to Chalcis, must begin at least
half a century earlier.
The earliest coins which can with certainty be attributed to Eretria
are tetradrachms and lesser coins bearing on one side a cow scratching
her head with a hind foot and the letter E ; on the other side a cuttle-
fish in an incuse. The weight of the tetradrachms varies from 260
to 267 grains (16-84-17-27 grm.) : their date would begin probably
when Eretria was rebuilt after the Persian destruction of 490 B. c.,
say about 485 B.C.2 These coins show the raising of the standard
which is so general in Greek cities about the middle of the sixth
century 3 ; that raising cannot be so clearly traced at Chalcis.
It is, however, almost certain that the coins which I have men-
tioned were not the earliest issues of Eretria. A large and varied
series of uninscribed silver coins was first attributed to the cities of
Euboea by F. Imhoof-Blumer and E. Curtius.4 It consists of what
have been called in Germany Wappenmunzen, didrachms of Euboic
weight (130 grains, 8-42 grammes), bearing on one side a very simple
type, often enclosed in a linear circle, on the other side an incuse
square divided into four triangles by crossing lines.
The types are as follows : — *
1. Gorgon-head — Didrachm, obol, tetartemorion.
2. Ox-head, facing — Didrachm, hemiobol.
3. Owl to 1. — Didrachm, obol.
4. Horse, standing, unbridled — Didrachm.
5. Forepart of bridled horse r. or 1. — Didrachm.
6. Hinder part of horse to r. — Didrachm, drachm.
7. Amphora — Didrachm, obol.
1 Babelon, Traite, p. 667.
* As Mr. Head points out, Cat. Central Greece, Introd. p. Iviii, Eretria must
have been speedily rebuilt, as Eretrian ships were present at the battle of
Artemisium, 480 B. c. * See below, p. 39.
4 Hermes, x. 215 ; Monatsber. der Pr. Akad. 1831.
6 Babelon, Traite, ii. 1, pp. 674-723, Pis. xxxi-iiL
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 19
8. Astragalus — Didrachm.
9. Wheel. Sometimes of archaic type, one transverse crossed by
two supports : sometimes with four spokes, with or without supports
— Didrachm, drachm, obol.
10. Triskele of human legs — Didrachm, drachm, triobol.
11. Scarabaeus — Didrachm, obol.
12. Frog— Obol.
These types are by Mr. Head conjecturally assigned as follows to
the cities of Euboea: — l
Chalcis — Wheel, triskele.
Eretria — Gorgon-head, bull's head.
Cyme — Horse ; fore- or hind-part of horse.
Athenae Diades — Owl, astragalus.
Histiaea — Amphora.
These attributions, however, are anything but certain ; and the
whole question must be seriously considered.
We begin by identifying the coins of Eretria, which form the most
important class of early Euboean money. They form a series
thus :— 2
Didrachms.
Gorgon-head = incuse (in one case, lion's head in incuse).
Bull's head = incuse.
Tetradrachms.
Gorgon-head = Bull's head.
„ = face and forepaws of panther.
Later Coinage, after Persian wars.
Cow scratching herself = Sepia in incuse square.
As regards this later coinage, it can be given with confidence to
Eretria, as we have seen. But the earlier series, between which and
the later there is no point of direct contact, presents more difficulty.
It stretches over a considerable period of time, the style showing
gradual development, and the incuse giving way to a second type.
Only two attributions are suggested for the series, Athens and Eretria.
And the conclusive reason for assigning them to Eretria rather than
to Athens is that many of them are certainly later than the earliest
coins bearing the head of Athena and certainly of Athenian origin,
and that it is not to be supposed that two sets of coins of quite
1 Sr. Mus. Cat. Central Greece, p. xlix.
2 Br. Mus. Cat. Central Greece, Introduction.
B 2
20 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
different types and fabric would be issued contemporaneously from
the Athenian mint.
This argument may be enforced and made more definite by a careful
consideration of the weights of the coins. The earliest didrachms
above mentioned seldom exceed 130 grains in weight. The specimens
in the British Museum average 129-5 grains (8-39 grammes). The
later tetradrachms bearing the Gorgon-head and another type, the
head of a panther, are heavier, the average of six examples being
2 x 130-6, or if we omit one abnormal example, 2 x 131-4; these
latter, then, constitute the coinage of Eretria contemporary with the
early Athena types at Athens.
In treating of the coins of Athens I shall try to show that these
two-type pieces are first struck in the time of Peisistratus, who raised
the monetary standard from the Euboic level (130 grains for the
didrachm) to the Attic level (135 x 2 grains for the tetradrachm.)
If that view be correct, it will follow that the tetradrachms at Eretria
are later than the middle of the sixth century, and the didrachms
which preceded them presumably earlier than that date. We shall
find in dealing with the coins of Corinth that in the middle of the
sixth century Attic influence in that city also appreciably raised
the weight of the coins. Thus the Peisistratid issue of tetradrachms
turns out to be of great value as evidence for the arranging and
dating of the coins of Greece Proper.
On some of the tetradrachms given to Eretria there are two globules
in the field.1 These can scarcely be taken for anything but marks
of value. M. Six and M. Babelon regard their presence as proving
that the coins in question were issued as didrachms — double, that is
to say, of the drachm of 130 grains which they regard as used at
Athens between the time of Solon and that of Hippias. M. Six
draws the further conclusion that they were struck at Athens, there
being no evidence for the existence of so heavy a drachm elsewhere.
In my opinion, however, there is no satisfactory evidence for the
currency, even at Athens, of a drachm of the weight mentioned.
I regard the globules on the Eretrian coins as merely shewing that
they were of double the value of the coins which had up to that time
circulated at Eretria, and which were without doubt Euboic di-
drachms. The people of Eretria in the archaic period, just like the
people of Aegina,2 thought not in drachms, but in staters or di-
drachms. At Delphi, at a much later date, and at other places,
expenses were ordinarily reckoned in staters.
1 Br. Mus. Cat. Central Greece, p. 121 ; Babelon, TraM, PI. xxxi. 14.
2 See above, p. 14.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 21
Another series, that of the owl, has been attributed, not without
reason, to Athens. As M. Babelon has well observed, if a numis-
matist were asked what coinage would naturally at Athens precede
the Athena-type, the only reply he could make, remembering the
analogy of other series, would be, a coinage with owl for type.1
Examples have been found both in Attica and Euboea. The
amphora type would also be very appropriate to Athens. On the
later issues of the city the owl stands on an amphora ; and the am-
phora naturally would represent the oil which was the great gift
which Athena had bestowed upon men. The olive-spray marks the
Athenian coinage almost throughout, and the amphora would have
the same significance. The astragalus occurs frequently on the well-
known weights and tesserae of Athens.
M. Babelon tries to show the appropriateness to Athens of some
of the other types. He would connect the horse-type and the wheel,
as shorthand for a chariot, with the legend which narrated that
Srechtheus was the inventor of chariots. It might have been
better to seek in the types some allusion to the great festival of
Athena, with its processions of chariots. But in any case, little
weight can be assigned to what may be called literary or mythical
arguments. If a type is actually used on Athenian monuments, as
are the owl and the amphora, there is some reason to expect them on
the early coins. But the mere fact that a type has a legendary
connexion with the city goes for very little. I would therefore
regard the horse coins as rather Euboean than Attic.
The wheel series has been given by Mr. Svoronos to Megara.2 For
this also there is some show of reason. The type of Mesembria,
a Megarian colony in Thrace, is a radiate wheel, apparently a symbol
of the sun-god. The types at Megara would certainly be Apolline ;
on the coins of the fourth century they are the head of Apollo and
the lyre : but it is possible that the wheel may have been an earlier
type at Megara. It is scarcely to be supposed that Megara, the
outpost of the Dorians against Athens, and a great colonizing city in
the seventh century B. c., should have been without coins when Aegina,
Corinth, and Athens, her three neighbours, were all issuing them.
In view of the occurrence of the wheel on coins given with certainty
to Chalcis one might be disposed to give these wheel coins to that city.
But they are not earlier than the coins of Chalcis of which I have
spoken : and it is improbable that the city would issue at the same
time two dissimilar sets of coins.
1 Babelon, Traite, ii. 1, p. 705.
2 Journ. int. d'archtol. numism. 1898, p. 273.
22 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
It is doubtful whether in the case of these series, just as in the
case of the early electrum of Asia, we are justified in regarding the
types as regular civic stamps. Indeed, the variety of types is so
considerable, and the similarity of fabric so great, that Beule de-
clared they must all of them, or none, come from the mint of
Athens. They seem from the evidence of finds to have circulated
together with the regular early tetradrachms of Athens and Euboea.
For example, a hoard found at Eleusis l consisted of an early triobol
of Athens, a didrachm and triobol of Eretria, three obols bearing the
wheel, one the Gorgon-head, and a half obol bearing the bull's head.
A hoard found near Cyme in Euboea consisted of tetradrachms and
lesser coins of Eretria, many archaic tetradrachms of Athens, and
the following Wappenmunzen, wheel (1), owl (1), hind-part of
horse (1), fore-part of horse (1), standing horse (1), Gorgon-head
(2). Another hoard found at Eretria contained tetradrachms and
didrachms of Eretria, early Athenian tetradrachms, a tetradrachm
with Gorgon-head, and several examples of Wappenmunzen (types
not stated).2
It is thus clear that these coins had a wide and general circulation ;
and it seems almost certain that they belong to a monetary con-
vention of some kind. In the sixth century Athens and Eretria
were closely associated. But on the other hand there was hostility
between Athens and Megara.
To Euboea and Athens therefore I would attribute the series,
though certainty is impossible. We can separate one class as
Euboean, and another as probably Attic; but such types as the
horse, the wheel, the frog must remain of doubtful attribution.
IV. COINS OF CORINTH AND CORCYRA.
That the coinage of Corinth began very early is sufficiently proved
by its extremely archaic art and fabric. It is easy to prove that it
began at an earlier time than that of Athens. For the earliest tetra-
drachms of Athens are almost on the same level of art as the coins
of Corinth on which the head of Athena appears on the reverse, and
these are preceded by at least two regular series of coins, stretching
over a considerable space of time, as is shown by their variety and
abundance.
Now these coins of Athens can be dated with reasonable certainty
1 Kohler, Athen. Mitth. 1884, p. 357.
2 Kohler I.e. It is noteworthy that in these hoards there were found no coins
of Chalcis. Eretria and Athens stood together : Chalcis stood apart from them,
with Corinth.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 23
to the middle of the sixth century. The coins of Corinth then must
reach back to the early part of the seventh century, certainly to the
reign of Cypselus. They can scarcely, however, be so early as the
time of the foundation of Corcyra, or the Corcyrean coin would have
probably started under their influence.
Mr. Head's assignment of the early coins of Corinth is as
follows : —
Time of Cypselus, 657-625 B.C.
1. 9 Pegasus with curled wing = incuse square, of similar pattern
to that on coins of Aegina. Stater (130 grains, 8-42 grammes). (PI.
No. 9.)
Time of Periander and later, 625-500 B. c.
2. 9 As last = incuse developing into the croix gamme'e pattern.
Stater and drachm (43 grains ; 2-78 grammes). (PI. No. 10.)
On the hemidrachm of this class, a half Pegasus occurs, on the
obols a Pegasus, on the hemiobol, the head of Pegasus.
After 500 B.C.
3. An archaic head of Athena appears on the reverse of the
staters ; an archaic head of Aphrodite on the drachm. The diobol
bears the mark of value A, the trihemiobol the letters TPIH, the
hemiobol H. (PL No. 11.)
It appears to me that as Mr. Head has placed the archaic coins
of Athens bearing the head of Athena too early, so he has placed
the earliest staters of Corinth bearing the same head too late. Von
Fritze l has well pointed out that there cannot be much difference
in date between the two series, as the style of art is closely similar.
We cannot place the Athenian series earlier than, nor the Corinthian
series much later than, the middle of the sixth century.
Some of the earliest flat coins of Metapontum (Br. Mus. Cat.
Italy, p. 239) are restruck on coins of Corinth of the second type.
These Metapontine coins belong to the second half of the sixth
century. Somewhat later coins of Metapontum of thicker fabric
and belonging to the early years of the fifth century are restruck
on coins of Corinth of the third type, bearing the head of Athena.2
This evidence is however indefinite; it only shows the coins of
Corinth in each case to be older than the Metapontine restriking;
but does not tell us how much older.
1 Von Fritze, Zeitschr.f. Numism. xx. 143.
1 Babelon, Traitf, ii. 1, p. 1405.
24 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
I should modify Mr. Head's dates, which in any case are too
precise, in the following way : —
Class 1 (about) 650-600 B.C.
2 „ 600-550 „
3 „ 550-
As we have no reason for connecting a change of fabric with any
special events in the history of Corinth, any attempt at great accuracy
cannot be successful.
There is however one indication, that of weight, which Mr. Head
does not seem to have used. If we compare the coins of Class 2
with those of Class 3 we shall find that the latter are distinctly the
heavier. From the collection in the British Museum, which contains
only coins in good condition, we reach the following results.
Of 21 staters of Class II, the average weight is 127 grains.
Of 28 staters of Class III, the average weight is 132 grains.
That proves that at about the time when Class III came in, the
standard of the stater was raised by about five grains. A precisely
similar rise in the standard from 130 grains to 135 x 2 grains, took
place at Athens in the time of Peisistratus, as I shall presently try
to prove. I conjecture that the occasion of raising the standard at
Athens was the acquisition by Peisistratus of the silver mines on the
Strymon and at Laurium. Corinth seems to have followed the lead
of Athens, probably because she could not help herself. This little
investigation of weights strongly confirms the fixing of the middle of
the sixth century at Corinth as the time of the introduction of the
head of Athena as reverse type. One may even suspect that the type
itself was borrowed from the fine coinage of Peisistratus.
To go back. It is safe to attribute the origin of coinage at Corinth
to Cypselus. Generally speaking, we find the wealthy and art-loving
tyrants of Greece responsible for such innovations. We have next
to consider the monetary standard, and the reason for selecting it.
The Corinthian stater of 130 grains is of the weight of the Daric
or gold shekel of Persia, and of pre-Persian times. Like the
people of Euboea, those of Corinth transferred a gold standard
directly to silver, as the people of Phocaea had transferred it to
electrum. But they did so with a difference. The Euboeans, as we
have seen, took the stater as a didrachm, and divided it into two
drachms of sixty-five grains or twelve obols of eleven grains. They
thus completely Europeanized it, following the system of Pheidon.
The Corinthians retained the Asiatic system of division by three.
They divided their stater into three drachms of forty-three grains,
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 25
and eighteen obols of seven grains. This fact was already known
from the statements of ancient metrologists, and received final con-
firmation when inscriptions on the coins were read as marks of value,1
A or AIO standing for diobol, TP1H for trihemiobol, and H for
hemiobol. As the weights of these diobols, trihemiobols, and hemi-
obols are just what they should be when the drachm weighs forty-three
grains, the proof that this was the standard is beyond doubt.
If we seek a reason for this combined system, one may easily be
found. The object of Cypselus seems to have been to make terms
with the two systems of weight in use in Greece, the Euboic 2 and
the Aeginetan. The Corinthian stater of 130 grains would pass not
only as an Euboic stater, but as two-thirds of the Aeginetan stater of
196 grains. The Corinthian drachm of forty-three grains would be
equivalent to two-thirds of the Euboic drachm of sixty-five grains,
and four-ninths of the Aeginetan drachm of ninety-six grains.
Mr. Head3 has suggested that the Corinthian drachms may have
been regarded as practically the equivalent of an Aeginetan hemi-
drachm of forty-eight grains. It is, however, difficult to believe that
the drachm when equated with Aeginetan currency would pass at
a higher rate than the stater or tridrachm ; and this is implied in
Mr. Head's view. It is, however, quite probable that in some places
in later periods of Greek history, the Corinthian drachm and the
Aeginetan hemidrachm were equated. The fact is that we know
very little indeed as to the way in which Greek coins of various
systems were related in value on the tables of the money-changers :
there may have been a fixed convention in the matter, or there may
have been continual fluctuations according to demand and supply.
This is a matter for further investigation.
The trinal division of the Corinthian stater is valuable to the
numismatist, as it enables him to discern, in the Greek colonies of
Italy, Sicily, and Chalcidice in Macedonia, the influence of Corin-
thian commerce. There is a natural presumption that when cities
which adhere to the Attic standard divide their stater of 135 grains
by two they belong to the sphere of Euboean or Athenian commerce ;
when they divide it by three, they seem rather to be under Corinthian
influence. This reasonable view, however, has not been accepted by
Dr. Imhoof-Blumer, who sees in the trinal division of the stater in
Chalcidice a trace of Asiatic influence. The point is a fine one, but
1 First by myself, in Num. Chron. 1871.
8 The coins of Cypselus seem to be earlier than any extant coins of Euboea :
but we may well suppose the Euboic standard to have been already in existence.
3 Hist. Num., ed. 2, p. 399.
26 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
not unimportant. I prefer to consider the actual facts of exchange
and commerce as more important to the people of Chalcidice than
mere traditions of Asiatic procedure. That some of the cities of
Chalcidice and of South Italy use a drachm of 43-45 grains is there-
fore an important fact in the history of commerce. This investigation,
however, cannot be carried further in this place, as it is remote from
our immediate object.
Corcyra.
In the case of Corcyra also there is an interesting clashing between
the Aeginetan, the Corinthian, and the Euboic systems. We might
naturally have expected the city, when it first issued coins, to take as
its model the Corinthian coinage, which was certainly then in exist-
ence. But the relations of Corcyra to the mother-city were never
from the first cordial : and the first issue of coin probably took place
at the time when the people of Corcyra asserted their independence
about 585 B. c., after the death of Periander. The type of the
obverse, a cow suckling a calf, seems to refer to the early settlement
of the island from Euboea, that being an ordinary type of Carystus,
and referring probably to the worship of the Mother-Goddess.1 The
reverse type, a stellar pattern, is unlike anything in Greece Proper,
and bears a nearer likeness to devices used in Ionia. The weight is
the Aeginetic, but somewhat light ; probably through the influence
of the Corinthian standard, which was in use at Anactorium and
about the mouth of the Corinthian gulf. The Corinthian drachm, it
must be remembered, 43-45 grains, is distinctly lighter than the
Aeginetan hemidrachm of forty-eight grains. The coins of Corcyra do
not from the beginning exceed 180 grains (grm. 11-66) for the stater,
and 90 grains (grm. 5-83) for the drachm. If the above conjecture is
correct, these would pass as four and two drachms of Corinth.2 As
the coinage of Corinth was closely copied by the cities of Acarnania,
Anactorium, Leucas, and the rest, so the cities founded by Corcyra
in the north, on the coast of the Adriatic, notably Dyrrhachium and
Apollonia, closely copied the coins of Corcyra, from which their
money only differs in virtue of the inscriptions which it bears. The
coins give us a vivid impression of the clear geographical line which
separated the commercial sphere of Corcyra from that of Corinth.
That the Corcyrean standard had no influence in Italy or Sicily, but
only in the Adriatic is an important fact, indicating that the course of
Corcyrean trade ran northwards only.
1 Br. Mus. Cat. Thessaly to Aetolia, p. xlvii.
2 In Hist. Num. , ed. 2, p. xlix, Mr. Head has come to the same conclusion.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 27
It has been suggested 1 that the coin-standard of Corcyra might not
be connected with that of Aegina, but directly derived from some of
the cities of Asia, such as Miletus or Camirus. But all likelihood is
taken from this conjecture by the fact that it does not correspond with
any Asiatic standard. It is too heavy for the official standard of
Persia ; too light for that of Miletus. It is therefore better to derive
it from the Pheidonian standard which had course in all Greece Proper,
from Thessaly to Sparta.
V. EARLY COINS OF ATHENS.
There is no subject in Greek Numismatics which has been so fully
discussed as the earliest coinage of Athens ; and there are few
subjects in which a greater variety of opinion prevails. The discussion
has not been confined to numismatists, but has been taken up by
philologists and historians. Without going into all the by-ways of
the subject, I shall try briefly to portray its main features.
i. The earliest coinage.
There are three views as to what were the earliest coins of Athens.
If we could settle this question, which is a purely numismatic one, we
could with more confidence approach the other questions, philological,
economic and historic, which are involved.
The first claimants are certain coins of electrum, small pieces of
the weight of about twenty-one grains, having on one side an owl,
and on the other side an incuse. These we have already discussed
and shown that they lie outside the regular Athenian coinage.
The next claimant is the silver coins of various types, the so-called
Wappenmunzen, of the weight of 130 grains, which are found in
Euboea, Attica and Boeotia. I have spoken of them already under
Euboea, and claimed them mostly for Chalcis, Eretria, and other
cities of that island. But it is probable that some of them may
belong to Athens, and that Athens, early in the sixth century may
have issued coin closely like that of the cities of Euboea.
As we have seen, the coins of this class which can best claim
Athenian parentage are those of the type of the owl. M. Babelon
mentions 2 the following examples : —
Didrachms 124-1 grains (8-04 grammes) British Museum. (PI. No. 7.)
130-8 „ (8-47 „ ) De Luynes
130- „ (8-42 „ ) „
Obols 11-9-6 grains (-72 to -60 grammes) Several examples.
1 Hist. Num., ed. 2, p. 326. 2 Traite, ii. 1, p. 701.
28 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
The best indication what early uninscribed coins belong to a city
is to be found by comparing the types with those of the later and
recognized coins of that city. As the acknowledged coins of Athens
are stamped with an owl, we may claim the uninscribed coins with
that type for Athenian. As the later tetradrachms of Athens have
an amphora, on which the owl stands, for type, and many weights
have an amphora as type, we may fairly claim for Athens also the
uninscribed coins stamped with an amphora. (PI. No. 8.)
While we may attribute the owl coins, and the amphora coins to
Athens, I should stop there. I think M. Babelon's l attempts to find
mythological justification for the assignment of such types as the
horse and the wheel to Athens are fanciful. The bull's head type,
which some writers would assign to Athens is so closely connected
with the Gorgon-head, which almost certainly belongs to Eretria, that
we must refuse it to Athens.
Some numismatists attach value to the statement of Plutarch that
Theseus struck coins bearing the type of a bull. Pollux 2 also says
that the didrachm was of old the coin of the Athenians, and was
called a bull, because it had a bull stamped on it. In consequence
of these statements those coins have been attributed to Athens which
have as type a bull's head. It is however very probable that the
statements arose from a misunderstanding of the laws of Draco, in
which fines are stated in oxen. Later writers fancied that by oxen
Draco must have meant some kind of coin, knowing that the coins
of Aegina were called tortoises, those of Corinth horses, and those
of Athens owls. But we know that Draco was speaking of real
oxen. And it may be added that the head of an ox is a very different
thing from an ox.
The earliest coins, then, of Athens, appear to be silver didrachms
of Euboic weight, bearing as type the owl, or the amphora. These
may be safely given to the time of Solon, and connected with his
reforms. The tetradrachms bearing the head of Athena were almost
certainly, as I shall try to show, first issued in the time of Peisistratus.
Thus the coinage of Athens, during the first half of the sixth century,
seems to exhibit the city as closely related to Eretria in Euboea, and
a member of a monetary union including a group of cities in the
region. The fact is not uninstructive. In the time of Solon Athens
was still struggling with Megara for the possession of Salamis, and
dreams of the headship of Hellas, whether in letters, in commerce, or
in arms, had not yet risen above the horizon. It was the legislation
1 Traitt, ii. 1, p. 707. a ix. 60.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 29
of Solon, and still more the ambition of Peisistratus, which turned
Athens from a small city into a great one.
ii. The Reforms of Solon.
The question of the Solonic reform of the Athenian coinage is
one which has aroused more controversy than any other in Greek
numismatic history. Numismatists used to think that they had
a satisfactory account of the matter in a passage of Androtion
(probably from his 'ArOts) quoted by Plutarch in his Life of Solon (xv).
But certain statements in Aristotle's Constitution of Athens, since
brought to light, have been held to be quite irreconcilable with those
of Androtion. Some writers, such as W. Christ,1 still regard
Androtion as the preferable authority, thinking an archaeologist more
likely to be accurate in such matters than a philosopher. But the
great majority of the commentators on the work of Aristotle 2 main-
tain that his authority is final. In my opinion it is possible to
reconcile the statements of the two authorities, except in one or two
points. This I shall proceed to do.
The text of Plutarch runs as follows : KcuYoi TIV^S Zypa\\ravy &v
tcmv 'Avbporitov, OVK aTTOKOTTTj xpe<2r, dAAa TOKtov /merptoTTjn
ayaTTTjo-ai TOVS TT^rjra?, KCU a-ficra^dfiav oVojudVai TO
TOUTO, KCU rr\v fijt*a TOVT<J> yevo^vt]v r&v re /n£rpa>i> cirav^ria-iv /cat TOU
vontvfjiaTOS rifj.r)v. 'EKO.TOV yap ^7ro^7j(re bpa\p.(av TTJI> fj.vav, TrpoYepoy
e/38ofATjKOi'Ta Kai rpiStv ovaav' COOT' d/H0/u£ p.ev tcroy, bvvdp,fi 5' eAarroy
&TTobLbovT<t)v &»^eXci<r^at pJkv TOVS l/crfroiras /xeydXa, prjbev b% /3Ad>7rrecr0ai
TOVS KOjixi^bjuefous.
According to Androtion, then, the alteration in the coinage was
part of Solon's Seisachtheia or relief of debtors. Solon, says Andro-
tion, did not cancel the debts but moderated the interest. He caused
the mina which before had been of the weight of 73 drachms to be
equivalent to 100, so that debtors paid the same number of drachms
which they had borrowed, but in drachms of less weight ; thus those
who had sums to pay were gainers while those who received them
were no losers. It was this operation which gained for Solon and
his friends the name of \pedtKoiribai. or debt-cutters. Androtion, how-
ever, adds that at the same time Solon made an increase of measures,
that is, no doubt, measures of capacity. Apart from this phrase,
to which we will return later, the passage seems quite clear. As the
proportion of 73 to 100 is just the proportion in weight between the
1 Milnchener Sitzungsber. 1900, 118.
2 The literature of the subject, which is extensive, is given in Head's Historii
Numorum, ed. 2, p. 366.
30 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
mina and drachm of the Athenian coinage and those of Aegina,
numismatists naturally concluded that the Aeginetan standard was
before Solon's time in use at Athens, and that he lowered the standard
from Aeginetan to what may be called Solonic or Attic level, in
order that debtors should save 27 per cent, in their repayments. To
say that the creditors would lose nothing is of course absurd : what-
ever the debtors would gain they would lose : but it is very natural
that Solon should not have realized this fact. M. Babelon has no
difficulty in showing that the measure attributed to Solon was
financially unsound ; 1 but that is scarcely to the point. It is quite
certain that, all through the course of history, coinage has been
debased in order to accommodate debtors or to relieve the financial
straits of governments ; and we have no reason to think that Solon
would be too wise to attempt such things.
We must next turn to the passage bearing on the question in the
recently discovered work by Aristotle on The Constitution of
Athens,
The text of Aristotle, as determined by Blass and Kenyon, runs 2 :
'Ev fjLfv ovv rots vdfJ-ois ravra So/cei 6tlvai SrjjuoTiicti, irpd oe rrjs vo/ioflecnas
Troi7j<ra[i] rr\v T&V X[P]C^[J; ^7ro]K07T7ji>, icai jmera raura TTJV re rStv ^rpa>v
Kal <TTaOp.&v, Kal TTjy TOV rop.((T^aTos av£r)(riv. U intivov yap ey«Wro Kal
TO ju^rpa fxc^a) T&V <I>ei5&>veia>i> Kai 77 fjiva -nporcpov [#yo]v<ra <TTa[0^]6v
rats knarov. %v 8' 6 ap-^alos
TO rdXavrov dyouo-a?, »cac ^"nibicv€p.^drj(rav [at rjpcis [aval r
KOI TOIS aXXot? <rrad/LioT;.
The only serious question as to the reading arises over the phrase
beginning rf\v T« ro>i> /xeVpooi/ with the repetition of the article T*\V
before TOU i/o/u^o-juiaTos. Hill had already remarked on the oddness
of the phrase, and suggested as a possible emendation TTJZ; re TWV
fj.^Tpo)v KOI (TTadp.&v (av^ritnv), Kal ri\v roC vofx^ir/xaros {^fiaxnv). This
may be the original reading : but in any case the word QU^TJO-IS if
applied to coin need not mean its increase in weight, but may, as
some commentators have pointed out, only imply a greater abundance.
I shall presently, however, suggest a better explanation, namely that
Aristotle somewhat misread his authority.
Let me, however, give a paraphrase to show how I would interpret
the passage : —
Such were the democratic features of his lawgiving ; before which
1 Journ. Intern, de Numitm. vii. 228.
* Quoted from Hill in Num. Ohron. 1897, 285, 'A0. IIoX. c. 10. I have not
thought it necessary to mark the editors' restorations where they are certain.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 31
he arranged (1) the cutting-down l of the debts ; and after it (2) the
increase in weights and measures and the multiplication 2 of the
coins. For under him the measures became greater than those of
Pheidon ; (3) and the mina which formerly weighed seventy drachms
was filled up with the hundred drachms. (4) The early stater was
a didrachm. (5) He made also weights to go with the coinage, a
talent weighing 63 minae, which extra three minae were distributed
over the stater and other weights.
I am not at all convinced that Aristotle means to say anything
very different from what Androtion says. If we put the two sets of
statements in parallel columns there will appear a remarkable likeness
between them.
Aristotle.
He arranged the cutting down
of the debts ;
after that, an increase in weights
and measures, and increase (?) of
coin, the measures becoming
greater than those of Pheidon.
The mina which formerly
weighed 70 drachms, was filled
up with the hundred drachms.
Androtion.
(1) He favoured the poor and
lightened their burden, not by
cutting down the debts, but by
moderating the interest : this
benevolence they called Seisach-
theia.
(2) It was accompanied by an
increase of the measures, and
a change in the value of the
coins.
(3) He made the mina which
before had contained 73 drachms
consist of 100 drachms,
so that, when men repaid coins
equal in number but less in
weight, they were greatly advan-
taged, while those who received
were not injured.
(4) The early stater was a di-
drachm.
(5) He also made weights to go
with the coinage, a talent weigh-
ing 63 minae, which extra 3
minae were distributed over the
stater and other weights.
In passage (1) no doubt there seems a formal contradiction between
the authorities: but it is not deep, since the proceeding of Solon
1 airoKOTrf) means mutilation rather than destruction.
3 Or decrease, (uiuoiv, as above suggested.
32 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
might be regarded equally well in either aspect, as a diminution of
the debt, or as a lightening of the interest. A reduction in the
value of the coin would serve both purposes, since interest as well
as principal would be paid in the reduced coinage. (2) Here both
authorities are confused. Both are clear that the measures of
capacity were increased, so as to become, as Aristotle says, larger
than those of Pheidon, but as to what happened to the coin they are
less explicit. The phrase in Plutarch is -/(vofjilvrjv T&V re fxlrpow eirat;-
Kal TOV voplor paras uji?jj>. The phrase in Aristotle is TIJV T€ T&V
i/ Kal (TTad^Stv KOI Tr)v TOV vopfofjiaTos av£ri<nv. The phrases
sound as if the writers were following the same authority, but did
not understand precisely what happened to the coins. But Plutarch
(or Androtion) goes on to show clearly what he supposed to have
taken place, and we have no reason for thinking that Aristotle would
have rejected his explanation, which obviously implies that the value
of the coins was lessened. (3) Commentators have commonly sup-
posed that here there is no real conflict of the two authorities, but
that while Aristotle uses the round number 70, Plutarch gives the
more precise figure of 73. But the difference is in my view im-
portant. The proportion between 70 and 100 is nearly that between
the Euboic mina and the Aeginetan ; the proportion between 73 and
100 is nearly that between the Attic mina and the Aeginetan.1
Metrologists have not usually distinguished between the Euboic and
the Attic mina, calling it the Euboic-Attic. But if we discriminate
between the two, as I think we are bound by undeniable facts to do,
then we must consider Aristotle's statement as the more correct.
It is very natural that Plutarch's authority, writing at a time when
the Attic standard was in universal use, should have supposed that
it was that which was introduced by Solon. But we have in
Aristotle a valuable record of the real facts of the case : if we may
believe him, it was not the later Attic standard which Solon intro-
duced, but the real Euboic, which was appreciably lighter. The
coins bear out this view, and not the other.
Turning to the coins themselves, as the only safe test where
authorities differ, we are justified in saying that there were at Athens
none at all before the time of Solon. The fines in the laws of Draco
are given in oxen ; and as in the time of Draco the coins of Aegina
1 As we have seen above (p. 20) the Euboic drachm weighed 65 grains
(4-21 grammes) : the Attic 67-5 grains (4-37 grammes). The difference between
them is 3-6 per cent. Taking the Aeginetan drachm at 94 grains (6-09 grammes)
a mina weighing 70 such drachms would give 100 drachms weighing 65-8
grains, and a mina weighing 73 such drachms 100 drachms of 68-6 grains.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 33
were widely circulated, we may be sure that Athens was dilatory in
the introduction of coinage. As we are expressly told that the
measures which Solon introduced superseded the Pheidonian, we may
fairly assume the same in regard to the coins, and conclude that the
Aeginetan mina and drachm were in use at Athens in 600 B.C. For
the current didrachms of Aegina, Solon substituted coins weighing
130 grains, that is staters of the Euboic standard, which was already
accepted at Chalcis and Eretria, and (with a different system of divi-
sion) at Corinth. The whole question then narrows itself down to
this, were these staters, as Androtion asserted, didrachms intended to
pass in place of the heavier Aeginetan didrachms, or were they
drachms, as Aristotle is supposed by some recent authorities, such as
Six, Head, Hill, Babelon, and others to assert ? They suppose that
for some reason Solon introduced a mina not of the Euboic
weight, but of double that weight, which mina was again lowered
by the half by Hippias. They allow that at the end of the sixth
century a coin of 130 or 135 grains was a didrachm, but they
think that for the first three-quarters of that century it was called
a drachm.
Their reasons are twofold. In the first place they insist on inter-
preting the word av^trts as implying an addition to the weight of
the coins. In the second place they appeal to the testimony of
extant Athenian weights.1 They cite one of archaic style, bearing the
inscription rjiua-v lepov brnj.6(nov ' A6t]vai(av, weighing 426-6 grammes
(6,585 grains) which yields a mina of 13,170 grains and a drachm of
131 grains, and another inscribed bcKaaT&Tripov, weighing 177-52
grammes (2,738 grains) yielding a stater (or didrachm ?) of 273
grains. The second of these, however, proves little, as the familiar
tetradrachm of Athens of the usual type, and weighing 270 grains,
might well be called a stater. And the first in fact only confirms
what we knew before, that there was in use at Athens for some un-
unknown purposes, a mina and drachm of double the weight of those
ordinarily used for coins. But the use of this double mina was by
no means confined to the period between Solon and Hippias, as it
should be to give it any value in the present connexion. On the
contrary, it was used contemporaneously with the ordinary Solonic
weights in the fifth and fourth centuries.2 It can, therefore, have
had nothing to do with the Solonic reform of the coinage.
There is then no argument to be drawn from existing coins or
1 Num. Chron. 1895, 177 ; 1897, 288 ; Pernice, Griech. Gewichte, pp. 81, 82.
2 Murray, Greek Weights in Num. Chron. 1868, 68, 69 ; cf. Article Pondera iu
Smith's Diet, of Antiquities.
C D
34 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
weights to overthrow the view which I read in our ancient authorities.
Let us next turn to the historic probabilities of the case.
These seem to me entirely on the side of the reduction of weight.
Solon was essentially a moderate, wishing to destroy neither rich nor
poor, but to find for them a way of living together. But the poor
were overwhelmed with debt, and had largely mortgaged their land.
In such a case, to reduce the debt without abolishing it would be the
natural plan for a mediator. And although Solon was, doubtless, a
very great and wise man, I cannot see why he should not have
thought that he could most fairly accomplish this by reducing the
weight of the coinage. It is a process which has been resorted to by
financial reformers in all ages, until the English pound of silver
weighs a third of a pound, while the French livre weighs but a frac-
tion of an ounce. We have no reason to think that Solon's wisdom
lifted him above all the ways of thought of the time.
On the other hand it is hard to imagine any reason which Solon
could have had for raising the standard of the coin. The only sug-
gestion I find as to a motive is given by M. Babelon, who observes *
that he would by this means give an advantage to Athenian coin, and
promote its circulation. This will scarcely stand. In the first place,
in the time of Solon the Athenians had not discovered the mines of
Laurium, which were first worked in the time of Peisistratus, and so
had no particular motive for pushing their coin. In the second place,
if the Athenians were prepared to exchange their own coin of 130
grains for the Aeginetan drachm of 96 grains they must have been
very bad men of business. A slight addition to the weight of the
drachm would bring the coinage of Athens into request; but
an addition of 40 per cent, would not have had this effect at all.
It would be simply introducing a new monetary standard without
any visible reason.
We come now to statement No. 4, that the old standard coin was
a didrachm. I have translated xaPaK1"nP by ' standard coin y ; for
though the word properly means the type stamped on a coin, it may
also stand for the coin which bore the type. Six, Babelon, and Hill
have taken the phrase as proving that the early Athenian tetra-
drachms really passed as didrachms. But if in Solon's time, as I
have maintained, only didrachms of the ordinary Euboic weight
of 130 grains were issued, then Aristotle's assertion exactly corre-
sponds with the fact. Indeed, it entirely confirms my con-
tention.
We return to paragraph No. 2, in which we have again a valuable
1 Journ. Int. de Num. vii. 226.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 35
historic record which modern commentators have misunderstood.
We can scarcely suppose the statement of Aristotle that Solon in-
creased the measures and weights of Pheidon to be quite baseless.
This is in itself unlikely, and is rendered less so by the fact that even
Androtion also speaks of an enlargement of measures, at the same
time that he speaks of the lightening of the coinage. Aristotle
calls the enlargement of the measures a democratic measure, and it
is clear that from the point of view of the man in the street the en-
largement of measures was as much in his favour as the depreciation
of the coin, in which he had to pay for such measures.1
The measures and weights of Pheidon being in use at Athens at
the time, it would seem that Solon somewhat augmented them at the
same time that he lowered the weight of the coins. That Pheidonian
weights for goods were in use in later times we already knew : but
Solon, perhaps temporarily, raised them in a small degree.
The probable nature of his proceeding is made clear by comparison
with an Attic decree of some centuries later (C. I. G. i. 123, /. G. ii.
476) which runs as follows : ' The mina of commerce shall weigh
138 drachms of the Stephanephoros ' (i. e. Attic drachms, and so be
of the Pheidonian standard) ' and there shall be added (thrown in) 12
drachms/ It goes on to say that in every 5 minae, one mina shall be
thrown in in like manner, and in every talent 5 minae. Thus in case
of the talent, by this extraordinary decree, every seller was bound to
add y1^, in case of 5 minae ^, in case of a mina T^. The date of the
decree is the second or first century B.C.
Though it is difficult to understand the procedure in case of the
5 mina weight, which seems exceptional, it is impossible to regard
this decree as anything but a deliberate attempt to make the sellers
in the market give more than full weight. Probably a custom had
arisen of adding a little beyond the exact weight, as indeed often
happens among ourselves, and this is made compulsory, by a really
democratic law, a law which would have satisfied Shakespeare's
Jack Cade. Of course it was futile ; but the mere fact that it was
passed throws a remarkable light on the nature of the later democracy
of Athens. If such laws could be made in the Hellenistic age, after
centuries of successful Athenian trading, we can scarcely be surprised
that in the simple and unpractised sixth century B.C., even a wise
lawgiver who wished to conciliate the people should legislate to a
similar effect, and ordain that the seller should give the buyer full
weight and a little more.
1 This has already been pointed out by Prof. v. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff,
Aristoteles und Athen, i, p. 43.
36 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
And this may explain a fact which I have elsewhere l noted, that it
is quite usual in the case of Greek weights, and especially in the case
of the numerous Athenian weights which have come down to us, that
they should be appreciably heavier than the standard. A people so
fond of bargaining as the Greeks, whether ancient or modern, would
greatly appreciate a liberal measure ; and by using such weights and
measures a dealer in the market would be sure to increase his clientele.
We must not hastily apply modern scientific notions on such subjects
in the case of the ancient world.
All through the course of history the tendency of coins is to
deteriorate in weight and quality, unless when some fully organized
State with a commercial instinct makes it a part of its policy to keep
up the standard, and in so doing perhaps to keep up the standard
of its neighbours. But the tendency in weights and measures is
quite different ; competition keeps them up or even raises them.
Tnis may explain how it was that Solon, while he increased the
measures and the commercial weights, lowered the standard of the
coin. Formerly I supposed that his standard was slightly heavier
than the Euboic, 67-5 grains for the drachm, in place of 65. But
I am now convinced that this slight increase in the weight came in
the time, not of Solon, but of Peisistratus, as shall be presently shown.
Paragraph (5) is made somewhat obscure by the addition of the
phrase itpbs TO vo^iv^a. Apart from that, we might naturally have
supposed that it gives one the exact percentage by which the
Pheidonian weights were increased, namely three minae to the talent,
or five per cent. And this must, in spite of the additional words,
be what is meant. We must therefore take the phrase Trpds rd
vo/Aio-jLia to imply not that the coin-weights were raised, which is
clearly not the fact, but that the weight of commodities which were
bought and sold for money was raised. It seems to me that these
interpretations give us for the first time a reasonable and probable
view of the monetary reform of Solon.
in. The Coinage of Peisistratus.
The date of the first issue of the well-known tetradrachms of
Athens, which bear on one side the head of Athena, on the other an
owl and an olive-twig, has been much disputed. The opinion of
Mr. Head, an opinion always entitled to great weight, assigns this
issue to the early years of the sixth century, and to the reform of
Solon. He observes that 2 f among them are the oldest and rudest
1 Article Pondera, in Smith's Diet, of Antiquities.
• Hist. Num., ed. 2, p. 369.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 37
examples of a human head on any ancient coins . . . and I take these
to be quite the earliest Greek coins which were struck with both
obverse and reverse types.'
On the other hand Dr. Imhoof-Blumer and M. J. P. Six regard
it as impossible that coins with two types on obverse and reverse,
should make their appearance so early. These excellent authorities
think that the coinage did not arise until the time of Hippias
520-514 B.C. The coins which appear to Head so rude, and which
are indeed of very careless and primitive style, are regarded by them
as barbarous copies, or coins issued at a time of stress, and not really
very archaic. Imhoof regards them as struck during the democracy
which followed the fall of Hippias : Six prefers to suppose that they
were struck when Hippias was besieged in the Acropolis.
I have no hesitation in a partial acceptance of this view. It
seems to me clear that a great proportion of the extant early tetra-
drachms is really of barbarous and imitative character. Such coins
are Babelon pi. xxxiv, nos. 2-11 and Brit. Mus. Cat. pi. i, 3, 5, 6
(our PL Nos. 14, 15). These must be distinguished from the really
fine archaic coins of Athens, which certainly preceded them. The
fabric of the two classes of coins is very different ; in the one case
we have fine and careful work, in the other great carelessness and
irregularity.
It is to be observed that the theta with crossed bar ©, which is
a really archaic form, is found, so far as I am aware, only on coins
of the finer and more careful type,1 which I regard as struck at
Athens itself. The other form of O is found invariably on the
ruder coins, which may be barbarous copies. Although archaic
forms of letters often reappear at a time when one would suppose
them obsolete, and so are not a very trustworthy guide in the assign-
ment of dates by inscriptions, yet the facts which I have noted fall
in rather with the theory that these rude coins are late in date than
with the view that they belong to the time of Solon.
The barbarous class may very possibly have been struck by the
Persian army when in Greece. The troops of Xerxes would need
silver money as well as the gold darics to pay for such necessaries
as they could not procure without payment. And this view is
actually confirmed by the discovery of coins of the class in the canal
of Xerxes by Mount Athos,2 and on the Acropolis itself.3 This
1 Such as Brit. Mus. Cat., PL ii. 6-7 ; Babelon, Traite, PL xxxiv. 15-17.
This 0 is found in the very early inscriptions of Athens, down to the time of
Euphronius. See Droysen, Prcuss. Akad. der Wiss. , Sitzungsber. 1882, p. 8.
2 Babelon, Traite, ii. 1, p. 765. * Babelon, pi. xxxiv. 2-8, 10, 11.
38 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
theory had already occurred to Beule and F. Lenormant. Such
coins as I am considering may then fairly be given to the end of the
sixth or the beginning of the fifth century.
But what is the date of the really earliest coins of Athena type,
those pieces of fine archaic type the style of which is so distinctive
that we can venture with confidence to give them a date ? I refer to
such coins as Babelon pi. xxxiv. 14-18; xxv. 1, 2; Brit. Mus.
Cat. pi. i. 11, pi. ii. 2, 7 (our PL Nos. 12, 13). We must briefly
consider their fabric and style. In regard to fabric the most note-
worthy fact is that they have a reverse — as well as an obverse — type.
This is a rare phenomenon in the sixth century, east of the Adriatic.
But two types were in use in Italy at the middle of the sixth
century ; and some coins of Samos, which must be given to the
same date, have a reverse type enclosed in an incuse square.1 But
we know of no coins earlier than about 550 B.C. which have two
types. In regard to style we have a great range of Athenian
sculpture in the sixth century for comparison. The coins do not
exhibit the so-called island style, notable in the case of the dedicated
Corae; but they may well be set beside the head of Athena from
the pedimental Gigantomachy, which may date from about 530-
520 B. c., the head of the Calf-bearer, and the heads of the bronze
statuettes of Athena from the Perserschutt.
I therefore accept the view of several authorities, perhaps best
defended by von Fritze,2 that the earliest tetradrachms of Athens
belong to the middle of the sixth century. Von Fritze shows that
the head of Athena on them is about contemporary with that on the
coins of Corinth of 550-500 B.C.3 There can I think be little doubt
that this coinage was initiated by Peisistratus. That Tyrant had, as
every one knows, a special cult of Athena. He obtained possession
of extensive mines of silver, both at Laurium, and in the valley of
the Strymon,4 and required large issues of silver for the payment
of his mercenaries. He filled Athens with artists, brought from
Ionia and the Islands, and employed them on great works. He made
the Panathenaic festival more splendid. In short, he was precisely
the man to initiate a great coinage. It is possible that a great cele-
bration of the Panathenaea by Peisistratus was the occasion of its
first appearance.
The Athena coinage of Athens, from its first appearance, is
regulated by a standard somewhat heavier than the Euboic — drachm
1 Gardner, Samos, pi. i. 8-12.
2 Zeitschr.f. Num. xx. 143. So also Perrot and Lermann.
s See above, p. 24. 4 Hdt. i. 64.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 39
67-5 grains (grammes 4-37), instead of 65 grains (grammes 4-20). This
is easily explicable if they were issued by a tyrant of magnificent ideas,
anxious to make his city, his temple, his coins, the best in the world.
The coins were of fine silver, almost without alloy; and they very
speedily gained a reputation which they never lost. They seem to
have given rise, almost at once, to barbarous imitations; and
barbarous imitations abounded until Hellenistic times, when the
mint of Athens took careful measures to exclude such. Indeed they
were remarkably easy to copy ; and there was no reason why they
should not be copied by any tyrant or state which wished to put
silver into circulation.
The raising of the monetary standard by Peisistratus is one of the
land-marks of the early coinage of Hellas. We have seen, in dealing with
coins of Euboea, Corinth, and other cities that the action of Athens
compelled them also to raise the weight of their coins, which other-
wise would have stood in an unfavourable position in the neutral
markets. And thus we are furnished with a date in arranging the
early series of coins which is as valuable for the money of the sixth
century as is the introduction of the Rhodian standard for the
classification of the money of the early fourth century. Numismatists
generally have missed this clue, because they have identified the
Euboic and Attic standards, whereas the evidence of the coins them-
selves proves them to have been perceptibly different.
The standard introduced by Peisistratus was used in the earliest
times of coinage, the sixth or even the seventh century, at Samos or
some neighbouring city, for electrum and for silver.1 It was also
used at Cyrene for silver from 600 B.C. It appears to have been
derived from Egypt, where a kat of the weight of 135-140 grains
(grammes 8-74-9-07) was in use in the Delta. Through Naucratis
this weight spread in one direction to Cyrene, in another to Samos.
Peisistratus adopted it partly perhaps with a view to trade in Egypt.
It is a suggestive fact that large numbers of early Athenian coins
have been found in Egypt, on the site of Naucratis and elsewhere.
Another explanation of the raising of the standard by Peisistratus
may be found in the fact of his working mines of silver in Thrace.
We see in examining the coins of Thasos and the neighbouring
coast, that the stater in ordinary use there in the sixth century weighed
from 140 grains (9-07 grammes) upwards. Whence this standard was
derived is uncertain ; but the source may very possibly be Egyptian.
Whencesoever Peisistratus derived his coin-standard, it is certain
that its adoption at Athens was the beginning and foundation of
1 Head, Num. Chron. 1876, 273 ; Cat. Ionia, pp. xxiii, xli.
40 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY
Attic commercial supremacy. Thenceforward the Attic silver coin
dominated more and more the trade of the Aegean. The pure and
heavy coins of Athens tended to drive out inferior issues. When the
reign of the Tyrants at Athens gave way to that of the democracy,
the determination of the people to force the circulation of their money
grew stronger. Recently published inscriptions have proved to what
a degree the Athenian Demos hindered and prohibited the issue of
coins by the subject allies in the time of the Delian League.1 In
a well-known passage in the Frogs (405 B.C.) Aristophanes
speaks of the Athenian coinage as everywhere dominant, received
both by Greeks and barbarians. Even after the political fall of
Athens, Xenophon could write 2 that foreign merchants who carried
away from Athens not goods but the silver owls did a good business,
for they could anywhere part with them at a premium.
The roots of the flourishing Athenian Empire were fed largely by
the silver of Laurium. The Peisistratid coinage presents a striking
contrast to the modest issues of Solon, scarcely to be distinguished
from those of Euboea. It marks what Shakespeare calls ( the tide
in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.'
None of the triumphs of the Athenian tetradrachms was greater than
that which they won when the powerful tyrants of Sicily, Gelon and
Hieron and Theron accepted their lead and initiated the splendid
coinage of Sicily.
In the time of the tyrant Hippias (527-511 B.C.) a fresh crisis
took place in the Athenian coinage, if we may trust an obscure
passage in the Oeconomica attributed to Aristotle, which runs f he
made the current money of Athens no longer legal tender, and fixing
a rate of purchase ordered the people to bring it in to him, but when
they were assembled in expectation of the issue of a new type he gave
back the same money/ 3
The natural way of taking this passage is as a statement that
Hippias called in the current money, valuing it at a certain rate of
discount, and crediting at that rate those who brought it in : but
afterwards he paid these persons not in a new and full-weighted
coinage, but in the old currency. This of course is a procedure the
first part of which has been followed from time to time in all countries,
when a coinage has become outworn or debased, though more usually
1 Weil, in Zeitschr.f. Numism., xxv, p. 52. 2 De Vectigal. iii. 2.
8 TO re po/xtoyui TO ov 'Adijvaiois a&oKipov fnoirjtrf, rd£as 8e ripr/p fVceXeucre irpbs
aiirov dj/cuco^i'feiv* avv(\B6vTu>v 8t eVi TO> KOX//-CU trfpov x(1PaKT'lPat f^Sa>Kf TO aiiro
apyvptov. Oecon. ii. 4. A similar story is told of Dionysius of Syracuse.
* Num. Chron. 1895, p. 178 ; cf. Num. Chron. 1897, p. 292. So M. Babelon,
Traitt, p. 742.
THE EARLIEST COINS OF GREECE PROPER 41
in modern times it is the state and not the individual which bears the
loss. But there are difficulties in supposing that this is the meaning
of the writer, or at all events in supposing that this really took place
at Athens. For the early money of Athens is of full weight and
great purity, so that there could be no excuse for calling it in as
debased, and it is difficult to see what could have been the motive of
the tyrant.
M. Six, followed by Mr. Hill, has supposed that though Hippias
gave back the same coin, he did not give it back at the same rate ;
but that he reduced the standard of the drachm from the earlier level
of 135 grains to the later level of 67-5 grains, thus halving its weight ;
and while he had accepted the ordinary Athena and owl coins as
didrachms he returned them as tetradrachms, thus making a gain of
50 per cent. We have however seen that there is no valid reason for
supposing the drachm between the times of Solon and Hippias to
have been of double the weight of the later Athenian drachm. The
view of M. Six therefore lacks foundation.
Mr. Head has suggested 1 that Hippias may have improved and
modernized the types of the coinage ; although to the people who
were expecting something quite different it might well seem the same
coin over again. Perhaps this suggestion is the best. If we are to
accept the statement of the Oeconomica as historic, the best plan is
to take it quite literally and simply. Hippias, on some pretext, called
in the money of the Athenians at a discount, and then, instead of
issuing an entirely fresh coinage, gave out coins of the old types at
full value. A possibility which occurs to us is that his object may
have been to exclude from the coinage the barbarous imitations which
seem to have been so abundant. In any case the extant coins
sufficiently prove that no great change took place at that time in the
Athenian issues.
1 Num. Chron. 1893, p. 249.
Oxford
Printed by Horace Hart, at the University Press
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11